I'd have thought the answer was could you cope with questions asked by the employees regarding Asbestos?

Or the OP may have picked up considerable knowledge and experience over those 8 years, sufficient for the needs of those within the Org. he works for? Yes, the ACoP stipulates relevant experience, but the HSE are also content for awareness training to be delivered via e-learning tools (no interaction, no Q&A etc). A pragmatic approach may be required now and again. Then there's the requirement that refresher training mustn't be a regurgitaion of the initial delivery (And should cover in-house processes, procedures, incidents, investigations, emergency drills, etc etc.). Who better than an in-house qualified trainer to design and deliver that?

Thanks Ron, you answered my question

Ron E learning modules prepared by competent trainers though:-) There is a difficult balance here but I am always wary of those who simply ask "Am I competent" to do this or that training where I am not made aware of specific experience in the task/equipment itself. Bob

Ah but Claire we were only offered a list of the training achieved not any matters of experience, other than being a consultant. I have to say though that your assertion of some absestos knowledge is sufficient - it really depends on a lot of ifs buts and maybes. I do wholeheartedly agree about recognised Training qualification, with such as PTLLS as a minimum. Bob

I have a few certificates myself and recently added asbestos awareness too. I would suggest you get the most recent and basic information, backed up by a piece of paper too. I did mine through: http://www.thetrainingsocieti.co.uk/

There is another thread - Contractor Competence - that may be of interest to those who provide Asbestos Awareness training pursuant to Regulation 10 CAR 2012. A number of these accreditation outfits will not accept AA training UNLESS it has been provided by a UKATA member. Jobs for the boys no doubt! I have had personal experience of this only last week when an accreditation outfit refused to accept my training notwithstanding that the said accreditation body was spawned decades after I delivered my first AA training course. Our records can show that 305 persons have benefited from our "in house" provisions delivered by competent personnel. So my advice is - carry on delivering if you are competent to do so. If you encounter any difficulties with accreditation outfits please PM me so that I can log details for escalation purposes. Jon

Very important to bear in mind that some of these pre-qual schemes may not consider CAR Reg 10 Asbestos Awareness Training AT ALL in the evidence evaluation - an onus remains on those commissioning to ensure the contractor has the necessary specific competencies to do what is required. Unfortunately, the MGC would seem to be promoting /encouraging the UKATA (typ.) route (and furthermore, insisting on regular regurgitation via refresher - contrary to the ACoP) as yet another easy (lazy?) way of complying, saving the bother of considering numerous other equally valid training routes. There is IMHO a danger of the construction industry ending up tied to a very limited number of exclusive closed-shop providers rather than expend a little effort in evaluating equivalence routes. And yet Lofsted and the Government Cabinet Ministers would have us believe that this is somehow the "fault" od the CDM Regulations themselves. Quite bizarre. Of course, those working in Local Government will be aware that procurement law applicable to government bodies does not permit stipulation of such exclusive credentials and we are required (legally obliged) to consider equivalents. We all of us working in Local Authorities, NHS etc. should be aware of this (and failure to follow it is liable to lead to very expensive challenge, compensation payouts or worse). Worryingly, my observations suggest that some public bodies are tending to fall into the MGC trap - a trap that has a very nasty potential bite!